R.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 112, 12 May 1888, Page 8

R.M. COURT.

Yesterday. (Before Dr. Giles, R.M.)

Ross v. Frankly*.-Claim £5 ISfcpDr. McArthur appeared for plainfcifl ana Mr Tyldon for defendant.—lt appeared from the evidence that tho plamtill had, while lessee of a house at Otahulm belonging to Constable Graham, placed a erabtt and a tank on the premises. Subsequently plaintiff left the house, and it was leased to defendant, who refused to permit tho removal of the grato and tank, although repeated demands were made for them.— Dr MeArthur alleged that Graham, whoso presence he desired to complete his evidence had evaded_ service of tho subpojna, although a ballifl ha:l been nearolung for him for three days.—Tho defence was that tho tank and grate were fixtures, and after tho plaintiff had given up possession ho had no right to removo them. Tho Bench ruled that tho grate must he considered a fixture, but gave plaintiff judgment for tho value of the tank, with costs 16s. KAE v. OoNNor.— Claim, £1 6s, in respect of money lent.—Mr E. Cooper for defence. —Judgment for defendant with costs 10s 6d. E. Bailey v. G-. Brown.—Claim £3 11s. —Mr Burton for plaintiff and Mr Madden for defendant.—Tho claim was for repairs done to fishing smack, Bella Mary.—Tho defence was that the repairs had not been executed at tho order of iho defendant, but for a man named Beaton, who had leased l ier- —Plaintiff nonsuited, costs 10s 6d. Wokth V. Pei/TZKK. —Claim, £2 14s, goods .supplied. — Judgment for plaintiff with costs.